ST. LOUIS, Mo. — A Missouri appeals court has revived a lawsuit filed by a member of the Satanic Temple who is seeking a “religious exemption” from a state law that requires mothers to wait 72 to hours to obtain an abortion following an ultrasound and the provision of an informational booklet advising that they will be terminating the life of a human being.

“Because we believe that this case raises real and substantial constitutional claims, it is within the Missouri Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, and we hereby order its transfer,” the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District wrote on Tuesday.

As previously reported, the New York-based Satanic Temple announced in 2014 its plan to use the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision to “bolster” an initiative seeking exemptions from pro-life laws that its members claim to violate their religious beliefs.

The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in June of that year that the federal government cannot force closely-held companies to obey regulations which violate the owners’ religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby has been providing birth control coverage to employees for years, but took issue with four contraceptives that it considered to be abortifacients.

The organization therefore decided that it too would seek an exemption from laws that conflict with its beliefs, such as obtaining information or counseling about abortion before ending the unborn child’s life. It states that “[t]he Satanic Temple believes that the body is inviolable, ­­subject to one’s own will alone.”

The Satanic Temple then crafted a letter for abortion-minded women to present at abortion facilities in search of exemptions and waivers from applicable abortion laws.

“As an adherent to the principles of the Satanic Temple, my sincerely held religious beliefs are: My body is inviolable and subject to my will alone. … My inviolable body includes any fetal or embryonic tissue I carry so long as that tissue is unable to survive outside my body as an independent human being,” it reads in part.

One Missouri woman identified only under the pseudonym “Mary” went to a Planned Parenthood facility in St. Louis to obtain an abortion. As employees advised that she must wait 72 hours to undergo the procedure and must obtain an ultrasound, she then presented them with the letter from the Satanic Temple.

“I personally would have liked to have the procedure done as soon as possible,” “Mary,” who at the time was 12 weeks pregnant, told reporters. “But with all the difficulties, how hard it is do this, it’s been put off for several weeks. If you’re right on the edge of the state you’ve got to go 500 miles just to get to St. Louis, and you have to make arrangements.”

Shortly afterward, she and the Satanic Temple then decided to file suit against the State of Missouri at both the federal and state levels in an effort to obtain an exemption. The organization argued the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was also cited in the Hobby Lobby decision.

“The decision is substantially motivated and informed by Mary Doe’s belief in the Tenets,” the complaint asserted. “Thus its implementation, i.e., getting an abortion, is the ‘exercise of religion’ protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”

It noted that Doe doesn’t believe “as a matter of religious faith” that life begins at conception, but that she rather feels that she is simply aborting “tissue” that is “part of her body, and not a separate, unique, living human being.” However, it also stated that Doe “felt guilt and shame” for declining to hear the heartbeat of her unborn child during the ultrasound that is required 72 hours before the abortion.

In August 2016, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in concluding that Doe did not have standing as she was no longer pregnant, and did not present the court with evidence of a “threatened injury that is certainly impending and that any future injury is particular and concrete.”

The case was also rejected at the state level as Cole County Judge Joe Beteem ruled that Doe had failed to “state a claim for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” However, the Satanic Temple appealed both cases and the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that Doe’s case should be heard.

“Because we have determined on preliminary review that Ms. Doe’s claims challenging the validity of certain sections of the Informed Consent Law under the religion clauses are real and substantial and not merely colorable, we order transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court,” wrote Judge Thomas Newton on behalf of the three-judge panel.

“The Missouri legislation is intended to promote a religious belief that abortion is murder, and if you seek to obtain an abortion, you should be ashamed and punished,” Satanic Temple spokesperson Jex Blackmore said in a post following the ruling.

“Mary has clearly suffered as a result of Missouri’s Informed Consent laws,” she asserted. “Are Mary’s beliefs as a Satanist, albeit untraditional, undeserving of protection under the law?”

As previously reported, while the Satanic Temple contends that it is a religious group, it also notes on its website that it is “non-theistic” and does not believe in Satan or the supernatural at all, but only views the devil as a metaphor and a “symbol of the eternal rebel.”

“[W]e do not promote a belief in a personal Satan,” its FAQ section explains. “To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions.”

Some, therefore, consider the group as essentially an atheist effort to make a point about religion.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work?Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Commenting Guidelines: We welcome readers to comment on stories, but we will not tolerate remarks containing profanity, vulgarity, violence, blasphemy, all caps or any discourteous behavior. Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining a respectful public environment where readers can engage in reasonable discussion about matters affecting our nation and our world.Read More →

Robin Egg

This is so bizarre, that it sounds like it’s taken from a horror novel. Satanists not wanting to abide by a waiting period so they can kill their babies more quickly. Satanists stating they do not believe in a personal satan. You can’t make this stuff up. Always, always comes down to abortion…the flashpoint of America’s demise. Unless we repent as a nation and turn back to God……………..

L Kirkland

I agree. In addition, they obviously don’t even know what the definition is of the word inviolable. The act of abortion absolutely causes violence to the body and, I might add, not only to the unborn baby’s body, but to the body of the woman following this group who is claiming that her body is inviolable. Meaning of the word:

The arguments for and against the regulations in this case are religious in nature, meaning the state can’t pick and choose which ones are valid.

What will happen is:
1) The regulations will stay in place, but the Satanists will get their religious exemption. Anyone with a “deeply held belief” that contradicts the literature that discourages abortion will also be allowed religious exemptions.(because of RFRA)
OR
2) The regulations will be removed altogether, since they are arbitrary and religious in nature, and place an undue burden on the person seeking an abortion (which goes against earlier SCOTUS case).

That means that the “church of satan” is claiming that abortion (murder of an innocent) is one of their practices of worship that is protected by our Constitution…
Ludicrous.

Ending an innocent/dependent life is not a worship practice, it is murder. The right to life trumps any law supposedly legalizing abortion.

Shall we resurrect the aztec religion and its practice of human sacrifice?

chronicintel

This isn’t the Church of Satan; this is the Satanic Temple. They are two different organizations that in fact often times speak out against the other. (think Catholics and Protestants)

“The right to life trumps any law supposedly legalizing abortion.”

Equal protection under the law guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. What you’re proposing is that we should grant special privileges to fetuses, who aren’t recognized as American citizens or as people.

“Shall we resurrect the aztec religion and its practice of human sacrifice?”

Not sure why you are attacking the Aztec religion for human sacrifice, since Christianity glorifies a human sacrifice as its central tenet, and also whose God also condoned human sacrifice at some point.

Recognizing_Truth

Christianity glorifies the Son of God who gave Himself as the sacrifice – once – for all sins and sinners who come to God by faith in that all-sufficient sacrifice.

Completely different than any and all systems that demand regular or repeated human sacrifices as a (temporary) appeasement to the deity/deities.

chronicintel

In the Bible ,there is at least one recorded instance of a human sacrifice done in God’s name (Jephthah’s daughter) for a favor, and one story about an attempted sacrifice (Abraham’s son) that celebrates unwavering faith, and of course the one sacrifice that all humans must accept as true, lest they suffer Hell.

So yeah, while Christianity may not encourage human sacrifice anymore, it’s still a cult that celebrates them.

Recognizing_Truth

(a) God did not ask Jephthah to make such a sacrifice. Jephthah’s vow was foolish and not sanctioned by God.
(b) God provided a ram in place of Isaac (Abraham’s son). Asking Abraham for the sacrifice to see if he would trust God (even though he didn’t understand why God would ask such a thing) was the entire purpose, so this was not a human sacrifice either.
(c) Because of sin, we all are bound for judgment. Jesus (the son) sacrificed Himself to pay the penalty for sin. Being sinless He could pay for others’ sins since He had no debt of His own. Being God, His payment could pay for all others’ sins. This sacrifice was acceptable to and by God. But Jesus was raised from the dead, is alive now and forever-more, as proof that the sin debt is paid.

Judaism and Christianity have never condoned nor practiced human sacrifice and God strictly forbade it (codified in the Mosaic Law). The only human sacrifice that God accepted is that of Jesus. That is the only human sacrifice Christians celebrate, or ever have, or ever will. But Jesus was resurrected, and is alive forever.

Your attempt to paint Christians as once encouraging human sacrifice by saying “not…anymore” is specious and error ridden. An examination of all the Bible and the explanations within the Bible for the events you mentioned (e.g. Hebrews 11 explains the events of Genesis 22) demonstrates the error of your understanding and why your arguments do not hold up even among secular scholars of Bible history and events.

chronicintel

a) The relevant passage from Judges 11 is below. You’re right, God didn’t ask for it, but God still honored the bargain, instead of refusing the sacrifice.

29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”

38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

From this comes the Israelite tradition 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

chronicintel

b) If Abraham didn’t understand why God would ask for a sacrifice, why didn’t He just ask? If God’s request ran counter to what He believed God’s nature to be (that God never asked for a child sacrifice before), why did he go through with it unquestioningly?

Abraham could have said, “The God I know would never ask for a child sacrifice. You must be a demon (or Satan).”

What exactly was God hoping to accomplish with this test?

chronicintel

c) I never said Christians encouraged human sacrifice, I said they celebrated one. I agree that human sacrifice runs counter to most of what the Bible says for us to do, but Christians excuse human sacrifice when it’s done, or condoned, by God.

It seems during the time of the Israelites, human sacrifice would have been OK if it was in service of God’s work, and was in fact shown to be the case in Judges 11.

Of course, this seemed to be outside of the Mosiac Law at the time, but God can bend his own laws whenever he wishes, apparently.

Recognizing_Truth

You misapply the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.

If laws against murder say that I cannot kill someone just because they are an inconvenience on my life or lifestyle, then abortion laws run afoul of the 14th amendment because they don’t provide the same protection for the developing child.

The fact that you don’t want to admit that someone is an American citizen or even a “person” is WHY the 14th amendment was put into place – because the people of the day didn’t think blacks were people and not Americans. Now you want to say that “fetuses” are not Americans or people. In actuality the word “fetus” means OFFSPRING so a human fetus is a HUMAN OFFSPRING – thus a person.

Children in the womb are defenseless humans and if (since) they are going to have to fight for their rights under the 14th amendment then they’ll need a voice, and need special protection – the same way that elderly who are incapacitated are given special protection agains elder abuse; the same way that those in brain disease and brain trauma institutions and those in comas are given special protection against abuse and poor care. Abortion is the termination of a human life by another human’s actions. That is murder. The children in the womb need the help of those who are not defenseless to defend them from murder.

chronicintel

For funsies, let’s say I grant a fetus, or human offspring in your words, all the rights and protections of the 14th Amendment. Does that give the unborn child the right to use their mothers’s body?

Recognizing_Truth

(a) it’s not “my words” – look up fetus in the dictionary, and check its etymology. The word literally means “offspring”.
And, despite the obvious red herring and misinformation used to form your question:
(b) the unborn child absolutely has the right to use the mother’s body – it is the environment which the mother invited the child into (having sex is the means for procreating human life – basic biological fact.) and the one perfectly designed environment.

chronicintel

“..the mother invited the child into (having sex is the means for procreating human life – basic biological fact.)…”

This isn’t always the case. Consent to sex doesn’t necessarily mean consent to pregnancy. Even in the cases where the woman consented to pregnancy, she still has (and should have) the right to terminate it. Not all situations are clear cut, and there could be situations where a woman changes her mind during pregnancy. It is still HER body that is being used by her offspring.

It’s like someone volunteering to be an organ donor. Between consenting to organ donation via signature to the point where they actually donate the organ, they can still choose to not donate an organ. The government can’t force people to donate an organ, even if it is to save someone else’s life. Personal rights end when it comes in conflict with another’s.

Recognizing_Truth

Picking nits with that one, @chronicintel
Don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex. That’s the only sure way.
Want sex, then you run the real possibility that there will be a child BECAUSE THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SEX IS PROCREATION. You take a risk, you accept the consequence. That’s being human and civilized.
You blame someone else for your problem (i.e. the child) and then you kill them for it – you’re a murderer.

Those are just the facts.

Relabeling the developing child by its latin name (“fetus” = offspring) so it sounds “technical”; likening a developing child to “a bunch of cells” (you’re just a bunch of cells, too, technically) so the idea of a person and personal attachment is removed; and misrepresenting a developing life that is part of the mother’s nutrition system as “a parasite” might let YOU sleep better at night, but they’re all false rhetoric and misdirections. The baby is a human offspring developing in the perfect environment to bring forth another fully developed human. And abortion kills it with extreme prejudice.

Recognizing_Truth

Organ donation being used to support abortion?
Red Herring much?

chronicintel

Both are a matter of bodily rights.

Recognizing_Truth

Church of satan vs satanic temple; catholic vs protestant. Total red herring to the discussion.

To show you the fallacy of your red herring argument:
OK. So if a catholic sought a religious exemption to commit murder, or if a protestant sought a religious exemption to commit murder, or a member of the satanic temple sought a religious exemption to commit murder, or a member of the church of satan sought a religious exemption to commit murder, which one would you provide the exemption to?

Answer: None. Murder is murder and is not recognized by American society, jurisprudence, or common law as a component or act of worship. It is not protected by the 1st amendment religious protection from government intervention.

chronicintel

Well, that wasn’t the point of my comparison, which was to point out they are two different organizations. Similar ideas, but different goals.

Eldrida Urika

My first thought was, Great, give it to them! but then I thought again.
Is there a reason why they think it is about religion about the waiting period?
In my view it is a very sensible and reasonable thing for the woman to do on her own, but it can end up being regretted because of lack of research and having done it because of an emotion that can pass. Fear, self image, self confidence, so many things that other women feel stronger about themselves when they find out they have a life in them. Whether you keep them or not, if those emotions aren’t talked about and helped with, it is not an informed decision and they should really not let them have it until they can overcome the fear etc and know if they want to handle it when they aren’t afraid. I think I questioned my ability to have a child each time I found out I was pregnant. – no, I said that wrong -I questioned if I could cope with a child and all it entails to be a parent with each of them, with the “2 children” and “3 children” being more the focus on what I could cope with.
I was told I could not have any children at all when the doctor gave me my first positive test result. I wanted children but just having one was find with me, but I was gifted with 2 more. It doesn’t matter how many you have a lot of us go through whether we can “do it” and if we are stronger, or not pushed to agree, it is up to what the woman expects to be able to handle. With so many pros and cons about having children even when you think it’s a bad time, so many people have made it work now and so many ways to get help. It depends so much I guess that if all isn’t considered, it can be regretted later when something makes them question their decision.
I cannot ever imagine Myself capable of ending my own child’s life no matter what reason that comes up. But I never had to worry about it either, and I expect that would alter my views.
It’s Sad either way.

chronicintel

The state mandated regulations, like the waiting period and literature, are arbitrary and not backed up by science. Waiting periods have no significant effect on deciding to get an abortion, judging by surveys; most women had already made up their minds. The waiting period is just a punishment for seeking an abortion.

Also, the literature claiming that life begins at conception is not a consensus held in scientific circles, and is a claim based on theology (religion).

Eldrida Urika

In this article it was about complaining about the displays at Christmas being only christian and Hebrew. There is a reason for that and it’s that no other religion has their holy day at that time of year. As far as the true reasons for Satanist ‘rebellion’, it would go a lot farther if you changed the icon from Satan. He is known the world over as Evil. You are not going to get as far with you campaign if you leave it as the one that people relate to evil. You may get some who are haters of Christianity, but you won’t convince anyone who actually believes in Satan being evil that he’s that Nice Guy you want people to view him as. Most people do not want to mess with Evil and won’t want to be any where Near Him/it . I am not concerned with their campaign, I find everyone has something to complain about these days. You forgot one thing about the abortion law. They want to make sure everyone has all the information because too many people do not understand the other option and don’t give me that everyone knows it because it’s just face that not everyone knows all of them. Being scared is not a reason to give up a baby, and that is what it is trying to stop, the abortions of the women who don’t know. It also allows them to make sure it is not being forced because of another person’s insistence. It may not make a difference to the people who do understand and if that is the case then longer is not going make any difference is it?
You are not happy with Christians and you try to look at anything they do as being bad, and when you try to find something, it’s easy to find. If people are not happy with the way others live, that’s too bad. Stop blaming the common people for what happens in the Government. We little people have the same rights you have and can only vote the same as you do. We do not try to affect others unless it is to help them. It is a fact that every Christian does not tell other people about their sins as others do. You are convicting all Christians with having one view about everything and that is not how it is. There is more than one way to understand and to live the life reflecting our Lord Jesus as a Good God, not an angry God, and they don’t even necessarily agree with what the Christians in the Government are doing. Try aiming your shots at the Gov’t for allowing it, because in the case of any Gov’t + Christian laws, are in the Governments hands, not the Christians, and definitely not the general population of Christians.
Blessings!

chronicintel

“In this article it was about complaining about the displays at Christmas being only christian and Hebrew. There is a reason for that and it’s that no other religion has their holy day at that time of year.”

Many Christmas traditions were co-opted from Pagan holidays (Yule and Saturnalia)

“As far as the true reasons for Satanist ‘rebellion’, it would go a lot farther if you changed the icon from Satan. He is known the world over as Evil. You are not going to get as far with you campaign if you leave it as the one that people relate to evil. You may get some who are haters of Christianity, but you won’t convince anyone who actually believes in Satan being evil that he’s that Nice Guy you want people to view him as.”

A common criticism, but there is a point behind using the name.

It doesn’t matter what reason you have for not wanting a baby, you have a right to not have it. Anyone that’s trying to convince you otherwise is trying to force their own moral opinions on you.

Eldrida Urika

I don’t think it is intentionally convincing so much as wanting everyone to make an informed choice because too many people seem to just do it as a way to get out of trouble, without giving other options available.
Even if it recommends adoption it isn’t pushing her to keep it, just to give it to a family who can’t have one – these days they are chosen by the birth mother and some are even in the families themselves because of the adoption. It’s like they give up their baby but still get to have it anyways.
What about the young girl/women who are often forced into an abortion? Is it ok for them not to know there are options they can still choose and help to get away from the abusive father? It’s not all a bad thing to be able to make an informed decision in a way that allows the abortion but ensures they have the proper information first.
Is this law for women who have multiple abortions? I mean, once, depending on the situation, even 2 times, but it is obviously beyond any help if it is someone who shrugs off the abortions anyway.
I can’t see a problem with a delay as long as it doesn’t create the situation as long term and loss of chance. I do understand both religion and secular sides of this coin and I have decided not to comment about it anymore. It’s hard to take both sides so I am removing myself from the whole thing. I think if you take all the risk factors about not being informed properly, it sounds like a good idea to me. Yes a woman does have some rights about her own body. But I won’t even try to go against what my beliefs are. I believe my God is a loving God that is a Just God too. He has more understanding about things, and there is always a reason for anything He does. If he had known about abortion coming to the world, I fully believe that Jesus would disagree with it. Each life is precious to him, and he cares about each one of his people, whether they are sinners, or believers, not, I believe that my Jesus loves everyone period. And no one is to be punished for their sins until Judgement Day, unless it is the law of the Land.
I guess it comes down to the same thing that it is all about understanding and belief and if either of those is missing it won’t mesh together. God knows what is just and what is not. If there is a punishment to be given for abortions, that is totally up to him, not Christians. We are only supposed to point out other people’s sins, not weigh them down with shame and humiliation. So if anyone is trying to control the women who have to wait, it’s the government that is allowing it. The general Christian public agree but the Christians only present the things and the Government has to approve or it won’t happen. That means it is the government’s fault still.
So do you think of the child as a blob of cells then? Have you seen the most recent pictures around on the net of the little tiny perfectly formed babies that had been miscarried? Looking at those photos, and the number that are popping up, the stories about them. at 13 weeks they are fully formed heart pumping people, that look just like we do. Google it and see for yourself. Christians have a hard time with murder and when you can see what the baby is like at the time of abortion, then I believe it is murder as well. If it was just a blob of cells it would not be fully formed in miscarriages. It would be a blob of cells.
So you think of it as pushing morals on others, but I see it as a murder and I bet you don’t agree with murder either. To make it “ok”, people try to block the image of a baby from their mind and that makes it into a blob. Is that what you think young girls want to realize later in life? Shouldn’t they be informed so they can make a good decision based on good medical information, and when they think about regretting it later, maybe they will remember how much thought they had put into it first, and not feel the regret that women have started to talk about. Doesn’t that make more sense than for a first time abortion being done too quickly?
I know your point, did I not mention it? Sorry. I have read the point of using Satan is about the religion aspect and the rebellious nature of the Fallen Angel. The thing is to try to draw people to you in the first place and that is not likely to. Maybe even a public image that is a nicer thought and not speak out loudly EVIL in the first place, with Satan with his rebellious nature and not showing as the biblical satan to draw them in. You won’t get enough people who want to “mess” with the devil and many people will say it is the devil trying to take us to hell and live with him. They aren’t about to mess with a possibility of what they believe the devil is capable of. I am totally looking at it as a person who might look at it in public and it would be about evil in my thoughts before I even thought to listen or go near an icon like Satan.
It’s your thing, not mine, I’m just an old deceased Ad man’s daughter who learned a lot about advertising and I’m trying to share what my Daddy told me. First impressions count a lot.
Blessings!

chronicintel

“I don’t think it is intentionally convincing so much as wanting everyone to make an informed choice because too many people seem to just do it as a way to get out of trouble, without giving other options available.”

The informed consent materials in Missouri, from what I’ve read, resemble propaganda rather than anything scientific or informative.

Adoption is a viable alternative, but only for those willing to carry the pregnancy to term. People who are seeking an abortion wish to terminate the pregnancy, not go through with it. Setting up adoption is time consuming, plus you still have to deal with the physical burden of being pregnant, which severely impacts whatever jobs or schooling they are attending.

“What about the young girl/women who are often forced into an abortion?”

Being pro-choice means the woman makes the choice on her own volition, free of any coercion. Being forced to undergo an abortion against their wishes is anti-choice.

“Is it ok for them not to know there are options they can still choose and help to get away from the abusive father? It’s not all a bad thing to be able to make an informed decision in a way that allows the abortion but ensures they have the proper information first.”

As long as the information is accurate and properly represented rather than preachy and emotionally manipulative, then I am ok with it.

“Is this law for women who have multiple abortions?”
It’s for every woman seeking an abortion.

“I can’t see a problem with a delay as long as it doesn’t create the situation as long term and loss of chance.”

I see what you’re saying, but this mandatory waiting period is in Missouri, where there is only one abortion clinic currently operating in the whole state. For women who live far away, what was previously a 2 day trip is now a 4 or 5 day trip. Time is a precious commodity for any woman, but it hits lower income women the hardest with travel expenses and time away from work or school. The law places a significant burden on women by placing an arbitrary waiting period on them. Why 3 days instead of 2 or 1 or none? What other medical procedure does the state enforce a waiting period on? (hint: it’s none)

“I do understand both religion and secular sides of this coin and I have decided not to comment about it anymore…”

I applaud that you don’t try to push your views on others.

“So if anyone is trying to control the women who have to wait, it’s the government that is allowing it. The general Christian public agree but the Christians only present the things and the Government has to approve or it won’t happen. That means it is the government’s fault still.”

Unfortunately, in some parts of the country there are government officials that let their religious beliefs influence public policy, which ends up affecting those who may not share their beliefs, like this case.

“So do you think of the child as a blob of cells then?”

I’m aware of the different stages of fetal development. >90% of abortions are occur in the 1st trimester, as well as most spontaneous miscarriages, so the pictures that go around that show sometimes graphic depictions of fetuses are plucked from the <10% of cases. These cases are the ones where the reasoning behind them were more serious than “I want an abortion just cuz, or it’s inconvenience”. These are cases where there are severe medical issues for the baby or the mother, or cases where the pregnancy was discovered late because of complicated life situations (abusive relationship, non-consensual intercourse, or mental/physical handicap of the mother). Very few elective abortions occur during the periods where the fetus is developed to the point where it makes compelling imagery for anti-choice propaganda.

Eldrida Urika

I do appreciate your help in understanding more specifically, but I really don’t want to weigh into this at all. As I said, I understand both sides of the issues and I just don’t want to speak with authority about this as I do not feel like I am an authority. When this kind of thing comes up, I leave it to God as he, for me, is the final authority. I can’t make a judgement other than I trust God and he has always known best.
Men, on the other hand often think they know best and that they are smarter than the God they are supposed to be following. They make themselves gods by manipulating things to go the way they want it to. That’s Evil, and deceptive. Anything that is against helping people, showing compassion, love, empathy, anything good, anything pure, any thing good, kind, for all because Jesus did not tell us to not give equal rights to sinners (which we all are) so that kind of thing is against the Lord’s Word.
The problem is not all religions follow Jesus’ Word the same way; some only follow what they ‘feel’ they need to or want to. Some think we are all saved by his gift of grace and need to do nothing for salvation. And some are no different than the people who are thinking more of themselves and what they want and believe than they are thinking about people and allowing others to have their own beliefs. Too many beliefs to be able to stop it from happening, or even arguing it on the basis of one religion vs another. Those people will always find a way to have an influence and the bigger the influence the better they like it, and the bigger the influence, the farther away from God they will drift because of the selfishness shown.
But, you know, that’s my opinion. My belief. I can tell you that many posters here will not agree with what I say in any way. I know, I’ve watched and read and finally came to post, after my cousin was banned for her view.
The other problem here is that our view, our Christian view, is for us, not for non-believers to be forced into. Jesus never forced anyone to follow him. He even let the ones that left go without a word to them. He never punished anyone for their sins while on earth teaching, as a matter of a fact he refused to condemn a sinner.
If they believed that Jesus was about love and loved everyone as themselves, I doubt it would be about religious views as about caring about what is happening to the individual, It’s not about how many or how few it matters that each one have someone to talk to about it, to show compassion for it, and if it be their way, they may encourage or discourage but only with both sides shown. Pros and cons should be honest things that can affect a person’s choice. If God is going to interfere with it, he will show us, and telling nonbelievers about the belief in sins, is a duty, but it isn’t a duty to force our beliefs on others. It’s to tell people and properly inform them about Salvation by repentance. So anyone who is involved with forcing someone to do what God tells us as believers to do or not to do, is not what he wants us to do. He gave everyone the choice of whether to follow him and it’s hard to force something when it has to be chosen by each individual’s free will. Anyone who thinks they can force a belief is fooling themselves and not anyone who knows our God.
I know I view it differently than a lot of others, but I can support everything I said in scriptures, if I am asked about it.
So please don’t ask me about this particular topic, I refuse to say how I myself feels about it. Hopefully you will see how my God sees it in a clearer way than some others do. Blessings! and Thanks again. Always happy to learn things.

L Kirkland

But, it’s okay to convince a woman to have one, right? You think every woman goes into the clinic determined to have an abortion. Some may. But, even those women may change their mind and opt for putting their baby up for adoption if their options were truly discussed. The abortion doctors will make sure to influence their decisions if they start asking questions. The abortion industry fights hard (incl.bribing politicians—ask Eric Harrah, the former abortionist, who readily admitted doing so) to keep laws from being passed which force them to give ultrasounds, or discuss the growth stage of the baby….giving them the facts about how, for example, a baby’s heart starts beating at 24 days. Whenever someone has any other surgical procedure (even dental surgery), they’re told the facts about what is happening in their body at the time, what the surgery entails, and what the prognoses would be.

Some women aren’t even aware they’re pregnant yet at 24 days. Many women have irregular menstrual cycles and don’t know that a baby has begun growing inside them because they judge such things by their cycle. By the time they suspect, get tested (even in a quick manner by buying a kit in a store), schedule an appt. for an abortion, and actually get into the clinic to have it, the baby’s heart has been beating for quite awhile already….as well as much other growth. Abortion doctors don’t want to inform a woman of the baby’s growth because they will lose money. They want her to have that abortion. It’s a very lucrative business as I posted earlier….and that’s an old interview from 1998. They make a lot of money from these procedures. THAT’S why they don’t want informed consent. Talk about forcing opinions on people…..and not because of any moral stand, either….but rather, due to their greed for money.

chronicintel

“But, it’s okay to convince a woman to have one, right?”

I don’t think it’s OK to coerce a woman to change her mind if it isn’t taking HER best interests at heart. I would not think it would be ok to try to convince a woman who is ready to be a parent to abort her child. That would be infringing on her right to choose.

“You think every woman goes into the clinic determined to have an abortion.”

Most do. Women don’t normally go to abortion clinics to weigh options. They already reached a point where they made the decision.

“But, even those women may change their mind and opt for putting their baby up for adoption if their options were truly discussed.”

Perhaps, but it doesn’t make sense. A large factor in getting an abortion as soon as possible is to avoid the physical, mental, and financial burden of carrying a pregnancy to term. A woman who is undecided and not as desperate may be more likely to give it up for adoption.

“The abortion industry fights hard (incl.bribing politicians—ask Eric Harrah, the former abortionist, who readily admitted doing so) to keep laws from being passed which force them to give ultrasounds, or discuss the growth stage of the baby….giving them the facts about how, for example, a baby’s heart starts beating at 24 days.”

That approach serves no medical purpose, nor do they change the circumstances that caused the woman to seek an abortion in the first place. Laws that force doctors to do that have the sole purpose of shaming, or coercing, a woman into not having an abortion. Should a man get a psych eval from two different doctors and/or pamphlets emphasizing the joys of fatherhood before getting a vasectomy? If you think not, then you have no basis for forcing women to undergo procedures or counseling irrelevant to the procedure as it affects the patient.

“Whenever someone has any other surgical procedure (even dental surgery), they’re told the facts about what is happening in their body at the time, what the surgery entails, and what the prognoses would be.”

AFAIK, women get the same for abortions.

“Some women aren’t even aware they’re pregnant yet at 24 days. Many women have irregular menstrual cycles and don’t know that a baby has begun growing inside them because they judge such things by their cycle. By the time they suspect, get tested (even in a quick manner by buying a kit in a store), schedule an appt. for an abortion, and actually get into the clinic to have it, the baby’s heart has been beating for quite awhile already….as well as much other growth.”

You’re giving a good reason why “heartbeat bills” that ban abortion once one is detected are in gross violation of the law and harmful to women.

“Abortion doctors don’t want to inform a woman of the baby’s growth because they will lose money. They want her to have that abortion. It’s a very lucrative business as I posted earlier….and that’s an old interview from 1998. They make a lot of money from these procedures. THAT’S why they don’t want informed consent. Talk about forcing opinions on people…..and not because of any moral stand, either….but rather, due to their greed for money.”

I really don’t see the problem, because as you pretty much said, that’s their job. It isn’t their job to convince patients to not use their services. That’s absurd. Should an orthopedic surgeon try to convince a patient who came in for orthopedic surgery to not to get orthopedic surgery?

If a woman wishes to carry a pregnancy to term, she’ll go to a pre-natal specialist. If she doesn’t, she’ll go to an abortionist. It isn’t that outrageous to comprehend.

The only time I would agree with you in the case of an abortion doctor not recommending the procedure is when the procedure puts that woman at serious health risk.

L Kirkland

Yeah….MOST women don’t have their minds made up. Even if they do, they’re suffering the aftereffects of that decision for years to come. Here’s the reality from a former abortionist:

Brad: When you were involved in this industry, what was your annual income?

Eric: When I walked away from the clinics, I walked away from everything. I left my ownership and my money there. I wanted nothing else to do with it. The average doctor who does abortions one day a week at a clinic averages 25-40 abortions. He will walk away in his pocket with an average of $100,000-$125,000 a year. An average clinic that performs roughly around 8,000 abortions will gross approximately $1 million a year.

Dr. W: One doctor can do that? That’s full time, though.

Eric: No, it’s not. Not at all. Abortion clinics are set up like cattle slaughtering centers. You get ’em in and you get ’em out. I would say, honestly, about 60-70 percent of all abortions take place on Saturdays.

Brad: How many women do they usually schedule in a day?

Eric: The maximum I’ve ever seen get done in a day is probably 50-60 women. Usually, that takes two abortionists, but I have seen doctors kick out 40-50 patients by themselves. First trimester cases–if you have a doctor who’s been doing it for a while and he knows what he’s doing–you can push through 6-7 in an hour.

And that goes back to the whole issue too of how little regulation there is. Even within PA, which prides itself on being the bastion for restrictive abortion laws, there really are no regulations. There’s nobody to monitor these facilities. There’s nobody who tracks the money that comes from the birth control companies that flood through the clinics–the paybacks. There’s nobody who tracks the insurance companies that give incentives to physicians for performing abortions, because insurance companies would rather pay for abortions than pay for a full labor and delivery.

Dr. W: You get those incentive payments?

Eric: Oh yeah, they flow like water. If you’re a participating member of an insurance comapny, they will give you incentives to perform an abortion. First trimester abortions are $250, and insurance companies such as . . . –I’ve seen them pay over $2,000 for those abortions, because they would rather pay $2,000-$2,500 for a first trimester case than pay $7,000-$8,000 for prenatal, labor and delivery.

Brad: So do you, as the clinic owner, pocket that money?

Eric: Oh, definitely.

Brad: What kind of counseling did you give?

Eric: In my facilities, I always gave option counseling. Of course you make the abortion the most appealing. I told them about adoption and about foster care and about (when there was welfare) assistance. The typical way it would go is, ‘Well, you know you can place your baby out for adoption.’ But then, in the second breath you would say, ‘That’s an option available to you, but you also have to realize that there’s going to be a baby of yours out here somewhere in the world you will never see again. At least with abortion you know what’s happening. You can go on with your life.

Publicly it looked good. But in reality . . . I would give them an option and then shoot it down. The only option you didn’t shoot down, obviously, was abortion.

Amos Moses – He>i

the body inside a womans body ….. is NOT her body …………………

chronicintel

So if I rent out my house to a tenant… it’s no longer my house?

Amos Moses – He>i

you signed away your legal rights to the tenet ……. you do retain certain rights …… but not without default or permission …….. and this is not an equivalency to being pregnant ……. so fail on that count ………..

Get Breaking Christian News in Your Inbox!

Sign Me Up! Top Daily Top Weekly

Christian News Headlines

Keep your site fresh and your visitors coming back by featuring Christian News Network's top news stories on your site. Learn more →

Connect With Us:

Learn More

About Christian News Network

Christian News Network provides up-to-date news and information affecting the body of Christ worldwide from an uncompromising Biblical worldview. Our objective is to present the news with the word of God as our lens, and to bring to light what is hid in the darkness. Learn more →